[lamps] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8399bis-03: (with COMMENT)

[John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8399bis-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8399bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the easy review. One nit, there's a homophone error in two places,
you use "lead" (like the metal) to mean "led" (the past tense of the verb to
lead). The RFC Editor would fix this of course.

I'm sad that this is a bis of a patch document to make a new patch document
that obsoletes the old one, instead of a bis of RFC 5280, but the pattern
having been established with RFC 8399 I suppose it would be too much to expect
it to have gone down any other way, and it's manifestly unreasonable to change
the approach at this late date. So... no objection. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯